Repository navigation
Always use PartitionMode::Auto in planner - #15339
Conversation
9ab5bbb to
1569f27
Compare
1569f27 to
2db642f
Compare
ozankabak
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for working on this - left one question inline
| physical_plan | ||
| 01)┌───────────────────────────┐ | ||
| 02)│ CoalesceBatchesExec │ | ||
| 02)│ ProjectionExec │ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we have this projection here? Shouldn't the built-in projection of hash join handle this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It probably should, but somehow doesn't, probably because of some optimization order of some sorts.
Anyway, the effect of this is usually small.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like your change made some deficiency/bug surface. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a small logic error in projection pushdown rule itself (and not related to optimization order).
|
FYI @ozankabak this is now ready |
|
Great - will review carefully tomorrow 🚀 |
berkaysynnada
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Idea makes sense to me, and most of the plan changes happen when MemoryExec is the source (which provides stats not from session_state.config().collect_statistics() but plan derived stats)
Yes, or statistics estimates based on file size. |
ozankabak
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Took a look and it LGTM - thank you
* Always use PartitionMode::Auto * Always use PartitionMode::Auto * Fix test * Fix test * Fix tests * Update plans * Add changed splans
* Always use PartitionMode::Auto * Always use PartitionMode::Auto * Fix test * Fix test * Fix tests * Update plans * Add changed splans
Which issue does this PR close?
PartitionMode::Autoby default #15349Rationale for this change
This improves plans a bit when file level statistics are available.
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?